49 Comments

Mike De Freitas
on September 22, 2014 at 5:18 pm

Wow. This is such exciting stuff. We already have the technology to map the
small tissue differences with an organ like the kidney. Once we master
creating the vessels within the organs, we can actually do this! So
exciting!!!﻿

Ok, that’s fair. However, I think in this particular case, the 3D modeling
is being used FOR science, which was mostly what my original comment was
about. Engineering for science is awesome, and that’s what I intended to
get across.

Science is not just about nature. Science is just a method for repeatable
discovery, and engineering is 100% based on the scientific method. You
can’t engineer a product that is not repeatable. Not to mention that
everything that has ever been done in engineering has been based on
physics, which is, well, science.

You can use science to optimize a design. Say, if I adjust the temperature
of the extruder, how will the viscosity and print resolution be affected?
But take the question of “How do I make a physical object from a digital 3D
model?”. How can science answer that? You can use science to guide your
approach, but you have to decide I’m going to make this kind of 3D printer
that articulates in these axes that extrudes this substance, etc, and that
just comes from inspiration/experience I suppose.

This is a brilliant idea. It seems you could print very dense vessel
networks, layer upon layer using this method (large sugar layers printed
vertucally) I wonder if these meshes could be made even more reliable than
normal vessel networks. Rep-rapped pancrease, kidneys, or livers could be
major. Hope you post more updates!

Yes, but if A is based on B, it doesn’t mean A is B. A house is not the
same thing as bricks. Likewise, you can USE science to, say, design an
efficient gear or something. But the why you’d want to use gear or how
you’d want to implement it, science can’t answer. A 3D printer is more than
the collected knowledge of fluid mechanics, heat transfer, Newtonian
physics, etc. I make the distinction because science and engineering each
require their own sort of cleverness to be good at.

I’d disagree. Engineering/Design != Science/Discovery. Science is certainly
a useful tool to help guide your design, but there is nothing
natural/universal about making a 3D printer. It’s nothing you can derive
from any laws of nature.

@bkrwvjd yep. I was looking everywhere for the best way to put on huge
muscles mass. Between I saw a video which helped me fix 2 simple mistakes
nearly everyone makes. The video is public now. Have a look:
bit.ly/NScZOj?=aajbzc

Scientists use a RepRap 3D printer to print sugar blood vessel network
“molds” into which living cells are pumped. The sugar lattice is dissolved,
and blood is pumped into the tiny spaces left behind. Result: the cells
survive.﻿